Outreach Updates

Both Andrew and JD conducted outreach activities. They will send updates.
EE had an IDEAS conference.

JB: Are there any particular issues when doing these outreach activities?
These may be appropriate for discussion.

JB: Spent a week in Beijing and did a W3C event. I provided an overview of
WAI. Matt May provided in depth information. I spent several days with
organizations that are interested in getting involved. I will send notes to
the list.

Hbj: There was a prize for the best of the Web. The importance of Web
accessibility was mentioned. There was work to do and would like to keep the
focus on this. This was positive.

AA: Australian interactive media industry has an award for inventive uses
of the Internet. This year submissions must meet WCAG 1.0. This is
encouraging.

JB: WAI continues to have conversation with Access Board. There is
consensus that this is important and that there should be convergence. We
have received comments from the Access Board on 2.0.

HB: A Boston organization has fixed accessibility of Web site based on
Harvey’s suggestions.

Minutes:

SLH: Monday would be intro and basics, intended audience managers and
developers who are new to accessibility. We will still call it “best
practices exchange” -- yet it will be an outreach activity. On
Tuesday, the focus will be on developers. Managers might not attend the
second day. I am concerned about having managers come for a Monday session
since they won’t be the audience focus on Tuesday.

JB: In Dublin, we found that there was so much on the agenda that it could
be overwhelming.

Hbj: For the afternoon session, several topics might be better for
Tuesday. These are: fundamental concepts, role of style sheets, CSS Web
accessibility.

AC: Maybe should be good management, flexibility.

SLH: Let’s move style sheets to the second day.

Hbj: I agree.

SLH: Make images accessible.

SAZ: Could have an overview of style sheets on first day and more in-depth
on second day.

JB: Would the showcase require preparation?

AA: Forms, titles, scripting. Is the Tuesday hands-on? Is the focus on
discussion?

SLH: Tuesday include examples, large group paper exercises, but not
computer hands-on.

EE: The first day is an introduction to the items. The second day is on
evaluation of accessibility. In one day, can all the issues be identified?

SLH: The second day will not focus primarily on evaluation. It will focus
on markup and design.

JB: Do we need to have implementation planning on the first day?

SLH: We could add this.

JB: We have some nice materials that generalize the process. We should
share these. The implementation process may be different in a government
agency? Are we targeting business or government?

AC: It doesn’t matter. Would it be possible to have someone who has
done it.

JB: This has been a problem.

AC: I think that there are some people here.

SLH: I worked with a few companies. I can use a case study and
examples.

JB: What do you think?

EE: It sounds good.

JB: Shawn and Shadi, you’re doing the agenda?

SLH: Yes. With input from others.

JB: Other comments on Tuesday? Does this agenda grab you?

AA: We deliver this all the time and get a good response.

JB: Will this be a variety of presenters?

SLH: We have not had much interest in others presenting. It’s Shadi
and me.

AC: I would be happy to present.

Hbj: It would be disturbed to others if you have a new person who presents
on different topics.

SLH: We could try to have one speaker within sessions. Just change after
breaks.

JB: Last call for comments on Tuesday’s agenda? What are the next
steps?

SLH: AC will make final confirmations on rooms and logistics. Shadi and I
will finish the announcement and send it out next week. We’ll ask
everyone to spread the word.

JB: Will this be informal?

SLH: We will work with AC and others whom we know and will send it out to
lists. On next Friday’s teleconference, we will give details.

AC: We have an event here next Friday and I’d like to announce the
event.

Hbj: Will there be a last date for participation? Will there be a minimum
audience?

SLH: We will set a date. We haven’t thought about minimum. We could
say that there is limited space. I’d like to close registration sooner
than we usually do.

Hbj: It will be a long way to go if it’s just ourselves.

SLH: AC is doing a lot of promotion. I think we are likely to have too
many rather than too few.

JB: For second day, we should ask about prior experience. This helps
people become aware of experiences they should have and gives us
information.

SLH: Is attending day one a prerequisite for attending day two.

SLH: I don’t want to repeat things on both days. My preference is
for developers to attend on day one.

JB: We can set it up for a prerequisite. Any objections?

AC: When I’ve done this before, no one has just attended one day -
they always also attend day two.

JB: SLH and SAZ should decide.

AC: I think that the announcement page should have more design. This could
encourage people to attend. I could get someone to work on it.

SLH: We need to do this. I wonder about leaving this page with details and
having another page that is more attractive.

JB: You can figure this out.

EE: On the registration form, ask them about the topics of interest.

JB: This sounds great.

EE: If you get one that people want to really hear about, can adjust
allocation of time.

Minutes:

EE: Cost considerations is after direct cost savings. There should be an
intro on cost considerations before cost savings.

SLH: The problem is with the terminology, not organization. Organized as
"costs and benefits"

JB: Does this allow skimming and get highlights?

CS: yes

Justin: yes

JB: Does this expression carry over to businesses in cultures and customs?
Does this work across environments? ...I will take silence as a
“yes.”

JB: Are there particular questions that you have?

SLH: I have questions about BM’s comments. BM suggested using
passive voice in intro section.

JB: I think that BM’s suggestion works well. It leads people into
document more smoothly.

SLH: BM suggested change “increase” to
“increased.”

JB: Should we have an editor’s committee for polishing the text?

EE: increase is a process. Increased is a conclusion.

SLH: Let’s look at financial benefits section.

BM: [walking through changes] Changes were more structural. I kept the
content pretty much the same.

JB: One of the decisions we’ve made is that we want to recognize
that there is interrelated and overlapping content. On some pages we provide
in-depth discussion. We don’t want to take out content but can link to
in-depth discussions.

SLH: I think that we should leave Technical content as is.

EE: I don’t see anything wrong repeating content. But, if it the
same words should not be done. But can give a different spin on same
topic.

JB: Have to keep details.

BM: I think the main thing was to make it visually accessible. So that it
could be scanned and see the headers. Rather than definitions, there are
descriptions. I was thinking in terms of chunking. I was also thinking about
people who use screen readers. The hierarchy is more consistent.

LC: We can respond to content but wordsmithing could be done by small
group.

HS: I don’t have both documents. There are a lot of subheaders but
there is a line that explains the topic. This is in the Web version.

SLH: This is a long document. I don’t think that we should make
significant cuts. What about having a table of contents at the beginning?

HB: I think that the three links are enough.

AA: I don’t think that it is too long. I don’t think that it
needs an overview. I like BM’s suggestions.

NL: I like what BM has done.

JB: This is a luxury for us. It is a coherently organized. There is an
alternate version. Maybe we do need to split off an editing group. SLH, do
you have more specific questions? Are there any other general reactions?

SP: I have two or three specific points. When talking about human resource
costs, some organizations subcontract the work. There may be no personnel
costs that are impacted. Could say “personnel costs/subcontracting
costs.”

NL: We, for example, outsource the work to developers. When have in-house
developers, additional costs may not be incurred.

SLH: This might be from a previous version.

SP: Certification costs. This can be a cost for some organizations that do
certification.

JB: Does this confuse the message? There may be some qualified way that we
can do this.

NL: We should be very careful on how to word this. It’s up to an
organization on whether they want to do this.

SLH: Is it a marketing cost? Certification is not a requirement to provide
a accessible site. It might be a marketing benefit.

JB: What do others think?

HS: On-going accessibility evaluation costs.

NL: Need to acquire the tool and it costs money.

HS: It is also a service.

SLH: Could say: testing time or costs. Explain these.

NL: Quality assurance testing.

JB: Many organizations would still view internal work as a cost.

SLH: Can change to say internal or external.

NL: It is not very clearly stated what we’re talking about. Testing
during design and quality assurance, whether outsourced or not.

JB: SLH, are you keeping a changelog on this?

SLH: I am trying to. I don’t see how it is not addressed in the
bullets.

NL: Just need to make it clearer.

HS: I agree. Just mentioning it is not enough. Have on-going accessibility
evaluation is a kind of quality assurance. There are still costs after Web
site is developed. Need to check Web site after it is developed.

EE: I agree that there are an on-going costs that pages are in compliance.
This is on-going and can be expensive.

HS: EE captures what I said. Certification may not be mentioned. But, we
are heading toward a kind of certification. Many people in an organization
can change the Web site. There is more danger that Web sites are no longer
accessible. Therefore, need on-going evaluation.

EE: To expand on certification, [an organization] will charge to be an
“objective” method of compliance. Do we trust the developers?
Is this in-house or outsourced?

JB: Be much more specific about on-going evaluation. Be clearer that some
of the costs maybe in-house or outsourced. As a marketing step, organizations
may do some type of certification which will be external and pricey.

SLH: Certification is not required for accessibility.

JB: Would this be cross-referenced for organizations that wish to do
this?

SLH: There is no marketing section in this document.

SP: Government agency may also be interested in certification.

SLH: This goes along with decreases attorney expenses.

NL: Important to put money into marketing and information to customers
about accessibility to their site.

JB: We don’t have a marketing section. This is the financial
filter. Maybe we should have a bullet point about marketing. In some
organizations, once draw in marketing, marketing may be the driver for
accessibility.

NL: It’s not only marketing. Need to inform customers that the Web
site is accessible.

SLH: This is business case and business realities.

SP: Costs. Return on investment.

NL: How can we say that return on investment is less than you get?

JB: This is a question that we can hang onto. We should use this when we
look at the whole suite.

SP: Customized. The intent is to list points to be considered. Use
“considered” rather than “customized.”

JB: This is a core concept that we have been using. There was a fair
amount of concern for using this term. We invite you to customize a selection
of these to address the needs of organization.

SP: In this context, we want to give benefits and costs.
“Customize” doesn’t fit well here.

JB: Can we ask the editor to consider this?

SLH: What about “choose”?

JB: Select relevant factors.

SLH: Customize can mean take it out

JB: I will try to write it out and send offline. Thank you for looking at
this in detail.

Next Meeting

There will be meeting on Dec. 12. SLH will be leading it and giving update
on usability. On Dec. 19, we will meet again. JB will lead discussion. On
Dec. 26 and Jan. 2 we will not meet.